Republicans and Blacks

[Jets]

Ok, the lesson here is that neither party did the right thing at one time or another.

 

[Meathead]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

These things happened during a republican administration.

Still begging for reparations, eh?

 

[katsteve2012]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

Why don't you go back to ancient Egypt and the way Nubians were treated? Or pick a non-black group, say Chinese-that would be more interesting.

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves had the expansion of slavery been allowed. If that could have been accomplished and not freed a single slave that would have been the outcome.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

 

[IM2]

Ok, the lesson here is that neither party did the right thing at one time or another.

The lesson is that republicans here are lying about the record of their party.

 

[IM2]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

These things happened during a republican administration.

Still begging for reparations, eh?

Another scared white.

 

[Third Party]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

Why don't you go back to ancient Egypt and the way Nubians were treated? Or pick a non-black group, say Chinese-that would be more interesting.

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

 

[Third Party]

Ok, the lesson here is that neither party did the right thing at one time or another.

The lesson is that republicans here are lying about the record of their party.

All whites lie. So do all blacks. We are equal.

 

[depotoo]

You can’t be serious? FEMA wasn’t even created until 1979.

It had to do with the local regions officials.

And Dem Gov Martineau called up the National Guard to assist.
Martineau was forced to deal with a major crisis when the Mississippi River broke free of its banks and covered 13 percent of the state during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927.

So where anyone is getting the president was responsible is rewriting history.

You are incorrect.

The Mississippi River “Great Flood of 1927” inundated large areas in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. However, it was in Mississippi where the embankments overflowed, drowning hundreds, perhaps a thousand people, and became one of the largest natural disasters in US history in terms of loss of life.

The flood also starkly revealed the wide “delta of Black peonage” or the “new” slavery that controlled the lives of slaves freed in 1865 and their descendants sixty-two years after passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The flood showed that the shadow of the plantation still loomed large, as little had changed in the Mississippi Delta since emancipation. Most blacks in the region still resided on plantations as sharecroppers and tenant farmers while many others were forced into coerced labor. In fact, in the aftermath of the flood, local law-enforcement authorities arrested thousands of black men, caged them in “pens,” and released them to white planters in need of rebuilding their businesses. The US Justice Department failed to aggressively pursue statutory violations of the Anti-Peonage Act of 1867, interceding reluctantly and sporadically in the region.

The Justice Department’s seeming indifference mirrored that of other federal agencies to blacks, who suffered disproportionately because of the flood. Walter White, executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) returned to Association headquarters in New York City, New York from the Mississippi Delta and wrote a scorching review of the failure of federal Jim Crow relief efforts in the flood areas. White revealed the use of federal troops in holding black “peons” in “concentration camps” until their planter employers could claim them.

This report and other confirming newspaper accounts prompted Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, who was in charge of relief, to appoint a “Colored Advisory Committee” to investigate the NAACP’s complaints. Hoover’s committee was chaired by Tuskegee Institute president Robert Russa Moton, with eleven other Tuskegeeans as committee members. Hoover hoped that a benign report from the conservative Washington camp would discredit the harsh criticism from the NAACP. Attempting to play both sides against the middle, Moton urged Hoover to use this “grave natural disaster “to create “a sense of freedom and hope” for blacks in the Delta. Refusing to support White’s earlier findings, Moton hoped that this noncritical approach would influence Hoover’s relief efforts in a positive manner. However, Moton’s committee’s report lay dormant on Hoover’s desk for months.

Between January and March 1928, The Crisis (NAACP’s official magazine) ran a series of exposes on the despair, starvation, and exploitation of black labor in the delta. These essays revealed to a national readership that peonage (debt-slavery) bolstered by the Southern convict-lease system still dominated the lives of the vast majority of African Americans in the region.

The Mississippi River Great Flood of 1927

So, you mean Hoover actually formed a Committee to find out what went wrong. Did he screw up by not having federal officials there? Yes. Was it done maliciously? No-

In 1927, there was no federal disaster-response agency. Instead, the federal government had a partnership with the Red Cross, a congressionally-chartered quasigovernmental entity, established for a number of purposes, including the carrying out of “a system of national and international relief in time of peace, and to apply the same in mitigating the suffering caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry out measures for preventing the same.”21...

Second, in some Red Cross camps, local officials brutalized Black evacuees and disallowed them to leave the camps.50 In each of these instances, the federal government had no one at these sites to provide accurate reports on the conditions or put a halt to these actions.51...


However, these same directions provided little direction as to the appropriate means. Locals were to figure it out themselves. Free to use whatever means they felt necessary to achieve these ends, local relief workers, in many instances, forced Black males, sometimes at gun point, to participate in flood response work.53


So, you can blame him for not having more oversight, but you can’t blame him for what local Dems did. We didn’t have phones available everywhere to even get reports of what was happening, but I suspect the officials weren’t going to report each other.

 

[katsteve2012]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

Why don't you go back to ancient Egypt and the way Nubians were treated? Or pick a non-black group, say Chinese-that would be more interesting.

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

Where did I say that you are scared to watch anything?

Apparently you are not aware of the involvement of blacks in the abolitionist movement. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fredrick Douglass to name a few.

"Harriet Tubman is perhaps the most well-known of all the Underground Railroad's "conductors." During a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom. And, as she once proudly pointed out to Frederick Douglass, in all of her journeys she "never lost a single passenger."


Had the risk of retribution from rabid criminal scum like the KKK been less, and the laws of the land controlling blacks were not so harsh and oppressive, there would have been far more blacks actively fighting for their freedom.

 

[Third Party]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

Why don't you go back to ancient Egypt and the way Nubians were treated? Or pick a non-black group, say Chinese-that would be more interesting.

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

Where did I say that you are scared to watch anything?-In blue above

Apparently you are not aware of the involvement of blacks in the abolitionist movement. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fredrick Douglass to name a few.

"Harriet Tubman is perhaps the most well-known of all the Underground Railroad's "conductors." During a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom. And, as she once proudly pointed out to Frederick Douglass, in all of her journeys she "never lost a single passenger."


Had the risk of retribution from rabid criminal scum like the KKK been less, and the laws of the land controlling blacks were not so harsh and oppressive, there would have been far more blacks actively fighting for their freedom.

Sure I heard of Tubman-the 20 dollar bill failure. Like I said very limited contribution somewhat due to KKK and laws but you minimize then the role of the Union soldier. Still don't want to watch the movie. Did see "Glory" though.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Ok, the lesson here is that neither party did the right thing at one time or another.

The lesson is that republicans here are lying about the record of their party.

It was never Lincoln intention to free the Southern States Slave population and had the insurrection never happened by the South you might be a slave in today time.

So you might want to thank the Confederate States stupidity for the reason why you are free in today time because the freeing of the Slaves was Lincoln punishment to the South...

 

[katsteve2012]

Why don't you go back to ancient Egypt and the way Nubians were treated? Or pick a non-black group, say Chinese-that would be more interesting.

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

Where did I say that you are scared to watch anything?-In blue above

Apparently you are not aware of the involvement of blacks in the abolitionist movement. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fredrick Douglass to name a few.

"Harriet Tubman is perhaps the most well-known of all the Underground Railroad's "conductors." During a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom. And, as she once proudly pointed out to Frederick Douglass, in all of her journeys she "never lost a single passenger."


Had the risk of retribution from rabid criminal scum like the KKK been less, and the laws of the land controlling blacks were not so harsh and oppressive, there would have been far more blacks actively fighting for their freedom.

Sure I heard of Tubman-the 20 dollar bill failure. Like I said very limited contribution somewhat due to KKK and laws but you minimize then the role of the Union soldier. Still don't want to watch the movie. Did see "Glory" though.

The role of the union soldiers is not minimized at all.

Their mission was to preserve the union, and eliminate the possibility of white laborers being further displaced by black slaves, and that was accomplished.

Harriet Tubman being placed on a limited circulation 20 dollar bill does not eliminate the fact she led over 300 slaves to freedom.

As far as the "limited"contribution of blacks, oppressive laws prior to the end of the war and a vigilant KKK, after the war for states rights, played far more than "somewhat" of an impact on their contribution to fighting for their freedom.

Those like Nat Turner fought back fearlessly during slavery but unfortunately, there were just not enough of those like him.

And, I still don't care if you watch the video or prefer to rely on fictionalized sources like "Glory" for your history lessons.

 

[lennypartiv]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

Lincoln had a complete plan, he was going to deport blacks so they would no longer be a problem. Obviously he didn't live long enough to successfully complete his plan.

 

[depotoo]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

Lincoln had a complete plan, he was going to deport blacks so they would no longer be a problem. Obviously he didn't live long enough to successfully complete his plan.

Bulls*it

 

[lennypartiv]

Bulls*it

<<Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies
Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship freed black slaves away from the US to British colonies in the Caribbean even in the final months of his life, it has emerged.>>

Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

 

[depotoo]

Bulls*it

<<Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies
Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship freed black slaves away from the US to British colonies in the Caribbean even in the final months of his life, it has emerged.>>

Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

And you believe the media as gospel. A fool’s gold.

 

[lennypartiv]

<<They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

The plan came despite an earlier test shipment of about 450 freed slaves to Haiti resulting in disaster. The former slaves were struck by smallpox and starvation, and survivors had to be rescued.

Mr Lincoln also considered sending freed slaves to what is now Panama, to construct a canal — decades before work began on the modern canal there in 1904.>>

Abraham Lincoln 'wanted to deport slaves' to new colonies

 

[Third Party]

No. And since you want to tell us how republicans freed blacks from slavery, you can kiss my ass.

Another one scared to watch the film.

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

Where did I say that you are scared to watch anything?-In blue above

Apparently you are not aware of the involvement of blacks in the abolitionist movement. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fredrick Douglass to name a few.

"Harriet Tubman is perhaps the most well-known of all the Underground Railroad's "conductors." During a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom. And, as she once proudly pointed out to Frederick Douglass, in all of her journeys she "never lost a single passenger."


Had the risk of retribution from rabid criminal scum like the KKK been less, and the laws of the land controlling blacks were not so harsh and oppressive, there would have been far more blacks actively fighting for their freedom.

Sure I heard of Tubman-the 20 dollar bill failure. Like I said very limited contribution somewhat due to KKK and laws but you minimize then the role of the Union soldier. Still don't want to watch the movie. Did see "Glory" though.

The role of the union soldiers is not minimized at all.

Their mission was to preserve the union, and eliminate the possibility of white laborers being further displaced by black slaves, and that was accomplished.

Harriet Tubman being placed on a limited circulation 20 dollar bill does not eliminate the fact she led over 300 slaves to freedom.

As far as the "limited"contribution of blacks, oppressive laws prior to the end of the war and a vigilant KKK, after the war for states rights, played far more than "somewhat" of an impact on their contribution to fighting for their freedom.

Those like Nat Turner fought back fearlessly during slavery but unfortunately, there were just not enough of those like him.

And, I still don't care if you watch the video or prefer to rely on fictionalized sources like "Glory" for your history lessons.

Thank you

 

[IM2]

We keep getting told about how republicans freed us from slavery. We don't get told about how republicans treated blacks after it was done.

The Great Flood of 1927; The Treatment of Blacks



Don't be scurred.

These things happened during a republican administration.

You DO realize that the South at that time was overwhelmingly Democrat, yes?

Guess not.

No excuses. This was a natural disaster, a federal emergency, handled by a republican administration

Oh dear. 1927? I am innocent. I wasn’t even born.

This is not about whether you were born or not. This is an illustration of how republicans treated blacks.

 

[IM2]

The war was fought by whites to preserve the union and protect the white laborer class from being displaced by black slaves.

The blacks who fought in the war did so with the hope of being free and equal, which by law did not happen until over 100 years later.

Don't think ANYONE is scared to watch the film-I have no interest, hence my comment. And I don't think Republicans freed the blacks-Abolitionists did. The black contribution was very limited.

Where did I say that you are scared to watch anything?-In blue above

Apparently you are not aware of the involvement of blacks in the abolitionist movement. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Fredrick Douglass to name a few.

"Harriet Tubman is perhaps the most well-known of all the Underground Railroad's "conductors." During a ten-year span she made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom. And, as she once proudly pointed out to Frederick Douglass, in all of her journeys she "never lost a single passenger."


Had the risk of retribution from rabid criminal scum like the KKK been less, and the laws of the land controlling blacks were not so harsh and oppressive, there would have been far more blacks actively fighting for their freedom.

Sure I heard of Tubman-the 20 dollar bill failure. Like I said very limited contribution somewhat due to KKK and laws but you minimize then the role of the Union soldier. Still don't want to watch the movie. Did see "Glory" though.

The role of the union soldiers is not minimized at all.

Their mission was to preserve the union, and eliminate the possibility of white laborers being further displaced by black slaves, and that was accomplished.

Harriet Tubman being placed on a limited circulation 20 dollar bill does not eliminate the fact she led over 300 slaves to freedom.

As far as the "limited"contribution of blacks, oppressive laws prior to the end of the war and a vigilant KKK, after the war for states rights, played far more than "somewhat" of an impact on their contribution to fighting for their freedom.

Those like Nat Turner fought back fearlessly during slavery but unfortunately, there were just not enough of those like him.

And, I still don't care if you watch the video or prefer to rely on fictionalized sources like "Glory" for your history lessons.

Thank you

You are scared to watch the film. Had this been a video of blacks committing crimes or doing something you perceive as racist against whites, you would be fully interested.